Copyright transfer agreement

Last updated

A copyright transfer agreement or copyright assignment agreement is an agreement that transfers the copyright for a work from the copyright owner to another party. This is one legal option for publishers and authors of books, magazines, movies, television shows, video games, and other commercial artistic works who want to include and use a work of a second creator: for example, a video game developer who wants to pay an artist to draw a boss to include in a game. Another option is to license the right to include and use the work, rather than transferring the copyright.

Contents

In some countries, a transfer of copyright is not legally allowed, and only licensing is possible. [1] In some countries like the United States [2] and the United Kingdom, [3] copyright transfer agreements generally must be in writing and must be signed by the person transferring the copyright. In many countries, if an employee is hired for the purpose of creating a copyrightable work for an employer, that employer is by default the owner of the copyright, [1] so no copyright transfer agreement is necessary. In many countries that recognize the moral rights of creators, those rights cannot be transferred, and copyright transfer agreements only transfer economic rights. [1]

In academic publishing, copyright transfer agreements do not normally involve the payment of remuneration or royalties. [4] Such agreements are a key element of subscription-based academic publishing, [5] and have been said to facilitate the handling of copyright-based permissions in print-only publishing. [6] In the age of electronic communication, the benefits of copyright transfer agreements have been questioned, [7] and while they remain the norm, open licenses as used in open access publishing have been established as an alternative. [8]

History

Copyright transfer agreements became common in the publishing business after the Copyright Act of 1976 in the United States and similar legislation in other countries [9] redefined copyright as accruing to the author from the moment of creation (rather than publication) of a work. [7] This required publishers to acquire copyrights from the author in order to sell the works or access to it, and written statements signed by the rights owner became necessary in order for the copyright transfer to be considered valid. [5] [10]

Purpose

The situation in which authors hold the copyright usually involves considerable effort in the form of correspondence and record keeping and often leads to unnecessary delays. Although this may appear to be trivial for a few requests, a good scholarly journal publishing exciting papers can expect several hundred requests per year; a task of this magnitude can become onerous. On the other hand, if the Journal holds the copyright, requests, value judgements, and permissions can be handled expeditiously to the satisfaction of all concerned.

— J. Lagowski (1982) [6]

Granting publishers the permission to copy, display and distribute the work is necessary for publishers to act as such, and publishing agreements across a wide range of publishers have such provisions. [4] [11] The reach of copyright transfer agreements can go well beyond that, and "[s]ome publishers require that, to the extent possible, copyright be transferred to them." [5] This means that no one, including the authors, can reuse text, tables, or figures in other publications without first getting permission from the new copyright owner. [12]

Copyright transfer agreements also ask that the authors confirm that they actually own the copyright for all the materials pertaining to a given act of publishing, and, in many agreements, that the item for which the copyright is to be transferred has not been previously published and is not under consideration to be published elsewhere, [12] to limit the frequency of duplicate publication and plagiarism. [4] [13]

Criticisms

Critics have said that the copyright transfer agreement in commercial scholarly publishing is "as much about ensuring long–term asset management as it is about providing service to the academic community" because the practice seems to grant favor to the publisher in a way that does not obviously benefit the authors. [14] Copyright transfer agreements often conflict with self-archiving practices [15] or appear to do so due to ambiguous language. [16]

In 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Johnson v. Storix upheld a copyright transfer involving no written assignment. [17] In that case, the Author, Anthony Johnson sold software as a sole proprietor and incorporated his company in 2003 as Storix, Inc. The court upheld a jury decision that Johnson transferred the copyright to the corporation upon its formation based on an annual report he wrote and signed stating that he had transferred “all assets” from his sole proprietorship. The jury rejected Johnson's claim he intended only to transfer the license to sell the software, and further decided that Johnson became a work for hire upon forming the corporation, thereby also forfeiting all rights to his derivative works. This is the first case in which a document, not itself a contract or agreement and containing no reference to the copyrights, was considered a “note or memorandum” of copyright transfer, and the first time a sole owner of a company was designated a work for hire for copyright ownership purposes.[ dubious – discuss ] This serves as a lesson that a “writing” required by the Copyright Act need not necessarily be “clear”, but may contain ambiguous language which can be interpreted by course of dealing by third parties to the alleged transaction.

Traditional methods of scholarly publishing require complete and exclusive copyright transfer from authors to the publisher, typically as a precondition for publication. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] This process transfers control and ownership over dissemination and reproduction from authors as creators to publishers as disseminators, with the latter then able to monetise the process. [23] The transfer and ownership of copyright represents a delicate tension between protecting the rights of authors, and the interests – financial as well as reputational – of publishers and institutes. [24] With OA publishing, typically authors retain copyright to their work, and articles and other outputs are granted a variety of licenses depending on the type.

The timing of the process of rights transfer is in itself problematic for several reasons. Firstly, copyright transfer usually being conditional for publication means that it is rarely freely transferred or acquired without pressure. [25] Secondly, it becomes very difficult for an author to not sign a copyright transfer agreement, due to the association of publication with career progression (publish or perish/publication pressure), and the time potentially wasted should the review and publication process have to be started afresh. There are power dynamics at play that do not benefit authors, and instead often compromise certain academic freedoms. [26] This might in part explain why authors in scientific research, in contrast to all other industries where original creators get honoraria or royalties, typically do not receive any payments from publishers at all. It also explains why many authors seem to continue to sign away their rights while simultaneously disagreeing with the rationale behind doing so. [27]

It remains unclear if such copyright transfer is generally permissible. [28] Research funders or institutes, public museums or art galleries might have over-ruling policies that state that copyright over research, content, intellectual property, employs or funds is not allowed to be transferred to third parties, commercial or otherwise. Usually a single author is signing on behalf of all authors, perhaps without their awareness or permission. [25] The full understanding of copyright transfer agreements requires a firm grasp of "legal speak" and copyright law, in an increasingly complex licensing and copyright landscape, [note 1] [note 2] and for which a steep learning curve for librarians and researchers exists. [29] [30] Thus, in many cases, authors might not even have the legal rights to transfer full rights to publishers, or agreements have been amended to make full texts available on repositories or archives, regardless of the subsequent publishing contract. [31]

This amounts to a fundamental discord between the purpose of copyright (i.e., to grant full choice to an author/creator over dissemination of works) and the application of it, because authors lose these rights during copyright transfer. Such fundamental conceptual violations are emphasised by the popular use of sites such as ResearchGate and Sci-Hub for illicit file sharing by academics and the wider public. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Factually, widespread, unrestricted sharing helps to advance science faster than paywalled articles, thus it can be argued that copyright transfer does a fundamental disservice to the entire research enterprise. [37] It is also highly counter-intuitive when learned societies such as the American Psychological Association actively monitor and remove copyrighted content they publish on behalf of authors, [note 3] as this is seen as not being in the best interests of either authors or the reusability of published research and a sign of the system of copyright transfer being counterproductive (because original creators lose all control over, and rights to, their own works).

Some commercial publishers, such as Elsevier, engage in "nominal copyright" where they require full and exclusive rights transfer from authors to the publisher for OA articles, while the copyright in name stays with the authors. [38] The assumption that this practice is a condition for publication is misleading, since even works that are in the public domain can be repurposed, printed, and disseminated by publishers. Authors can instead grant a simple non-exclusive license to publish that fulfils the same criteria. However, according to a survey from Taylor and Francis in 2013, almost half of researchers surveyed answered that they would still be content with copyright transfer for OA articles. [39]

Therefore, critics argue [28] that in scientific research, copyright is largely ineffective in its proposed use, but also wrongfully acquired in many cases, and goes practically against its fundamental intended purpose of helping to protect authors and further scientific research. Plan S requires that authors and their respective institutes retain copyright to articles without transferring them to publishers; something also supported by OA2020. [note 4] Researchers failed to find proof that copyright transfer is required for publication, or any case where a publisher has exercised copyright in the best interest of the authors. While one argument of publishers in favor of copyright transfer might be that it enables them to defend authors against any copyright infringements, [note 5] publishers can take on this responsibility even when copyright stays with the author, as is the policy of the Royal Society. [note 6]

Other models

Copyright transfer agreements are one way to govern permissions based on copyright. Since the advent of digital publishing, various commentators have pointed out the benefits of author-retained copyright, [7] [40] and publishers have started to implement it [41] using license agreements, wherein the author of the work retains copyright and gives the publisher the permission (exclusive or not) to reproduce and distribute the work. A third model is the so-called "browse-wrap" or "click-wrap" license model [42] that is becoming more and more popular in the form of the Creative Commons licenses: it allows anyone (including the publisher) to reproduce and distribute the work, with some possible restrictions. Creative Commons licenses are used by many open access journals. [43] NFTs can allow the transfer of copyright in the asset by way of the metadata on the blockchain. [44]

Author addenda

Copyright transfer agreements are usually prepared by the publisher, and some print journals include a copy of the statement in every issue they published. [45] If authors wish to deviate from the default phrasing – e.g., if they want to retain copyright or would not like to grant the publisher an exclusive right to publish – they can specify desired modifications, either by editing the document directly or by attaching an addendum to a copy of the default version. Publisher policies on the acceptance of such addenda vary, though. Some institutions offer instructions and assistance for staff in creating such addenda. [46] [47]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "Seven Things Every Scholarly Publisher Should Know about Researchers". 2016-08-30., Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf, The Scholarly Kitchen. (2016)
  2. ↑ "Guest Post — Academics and Copyright Ownership: Ignorant, Confused or Misled?". 2017-10-31., Elizabeth Gadd, The Scholarly Kitchen. (2017)
  3. ↑ "Monitoring of Unauthorized Internet Posting of Journal Articles"., American Psychological Association.
  4. ↑ "Final conference statement"., Berlin 14th Open Access conference.
  5. ↑ "Elsevier, Copyright: Protecting author rights"..
  6. ↑ "Royal Society License to Publish" (PDF)..

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific journal</span> Periodical journal publishing scientific research

In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by sharing findings from research with readers. They are normally specialized based on discipline, with authors picking which one they send their manuscripts to.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Academic publishing</span> Subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in academic journal articles, books or thesis. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called "grey literature". Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open access</span> Research publications distributed freely online

Open access (OA) is a set of principles and a range of practices through which research outputs are distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers. With open access strictly defined, or libre open access, barriers to copying or reuse are also reduced or removed by applying an open license for copyright.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elsevier</span> Dutch publishing and analytics company

Elsevier is a Dutch academic publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. Its products include journals such as The Lancet, Cell, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, Trends, the Current Opinion series, the online citation database Scopus, the SciVal tool for measuring research performance, the ClinicalKey search engine for clinicians, and the ClinicalPath evidence-based cancer care service. Elsevier's products and services include digital tools for data management, instruction, research analytics, and assessment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Self-archiving</span> Authorial deposit of documents to provide open access

Self-archiving is the act of depositing a free copy of an electronic document online in order to provide open access to it. The term usually refers to the self-archiving of peer-reviewed research journal and conference articles, as well as theses and book chapters, deposited in the author's own institutional repository or open archive for the purpose of maximizing its accessibility, usage and citation impact. The term green open access has become common in recent years, distinguishing this approach from gold open access, where the journal itself makes the articles publicly available without charge to the reader.

In academic publishing, an embargo is a period during which access to academic journals is not allowed to users who have not paid for access. The purpose of this is to ensure publishers have revenue to support their activities, although the impact of embargoes on publishers is hotly debated, with some studies finding no impact while publisher experience suggests otherwise. A 2012 survey of libraries by the Association of Learned, Professional, and Society Publishers on the likelihood of journal cancellations in cases where most of the content was made freely accessible after six months suggests there would be a major negative impact on subscriptions, but this result has been debated.

Scholarly communication involves the creation, publication, dissemination and discovery of academic research, primarily in peer-reviewed journals and books. It is “the system through which research and other scholarly writings are created, evaluated for quality, disseminated to the scholarly community, and preserved for future use." This primarily involves the publication of peer-reviewed academic journals, books and conference papers.

SHERPA is an organisation originally set up in 2002 to run and manage the SHERPA Project.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition</span> Collection of research libraries promoting open access

The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) is an international alliance of academic and research libraries developed by the Association of Research Libraries in 1998 which promotes open access to scholarship. The coalition currently includes some 800 institutions in North America, Europe, Japan, China and Australia.

An open-access mandate is a policy adopted by a research institution, research funder, or government which requires or recommends researchers—usually university faculty or research staff and/or research grant recipients—to make their published, peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers open access (1) by self-archiving their final, peer-reviewed drafts in a freely accessible institutional repository or disciplinary repository or (2) by publishing them in an open-access journal or both.

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory academic publisher of open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies that are considered to be of questionable quality. As of December 2014, it offered 244 English-language open-access journals in the areas of science, technology, business, economy, and medicine.

Copernicus Publications is a publisher of scientific literature based in Göttingen, Germany. Founded in 1994, Copernicus Publications currently publishes 28 peer-reviewed open access scientific journals and other publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

Academic journal publishing reform is the advocacy for changes in the way academic journals are created and distributed in the age of the Internet and the advent of electronic publishing. Since the rise of the Internet, people have organized campaigns to change the relationships among and between academic authors, their traditional distributors and their readership. Most of the discussion has centered on taking advantage of benefits offered by the Internet's capacity for widespread distribution of reading material.

This is a summary of the different copyright policies of academic publishers for books, book chapters, and journal articles.

The NIH Public Access Policy is an open access mandate, drafted in 2004 and mandated in 2008, requiring that research papers describing research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be available to the public free through PubMed Central within 12 months of publication. PubMed Central is the self-archiving repository in which authors or their publishers deposit their publications. Copyright is retained by the usual holders, but authors may submit papers with one of the Creative Commons licenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predatory publishing</span> Fraudulent business model for scientific publications

Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an exploitative academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors while only superficially checking articles for quality and legitimacy, and without providing editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide, whether open access or not. Namely, the rejection rate of predatory journals is low, but seldom is zero. The phenomenon of "open access predatory publishers" was first noticed by Jeffrey Beall, when he described "publishers that are ready to publish any article for payment". However, criticisms about the label "predatory" have been raised. A lengthy review of the controversy started by Beall appears in The Journal of Academic Librarianship.

An article processing charge (APC), also known as a publication fee, is a fee which is sometimes charged to authors. Most commonly, it is involved in making an academic work available as open access (OA), in either a full OA journal or in a hybrid journal. This fee may be paid by the author, the author's institution, or their research funder. Sometimes, publication fees are also involved in traditional journals or for paywalled content. Some publishers waive the fee in cases of hardship or geographic location, but this is not a widespread practice. An article processing charge does not guarantee that the author retains copyright to the work, or that it will be made available under a Creative Commons license.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sci-Hub</span> Scientific research paper file sharing website

Sci-Hub is a shadow library website that provides free access to millions of research papers, regardless of copyright, by bypassing publishers' paywalls in various ways. Unlike Library Genesis, it does not provide access to books. Sci-Hub was founded in Kazakhstan by Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011, in response to the high cost of research papers behind paywalls. The site is extensively used worldwide. In September 2019, the site's operator(s) said that it served approximately 400,000 requests per day. In addition to its intensive use, Sci-Hub stands out among other shadow libraries because of its easy use/reliability and because of the enormous size of its collection: a 2021 study estimated, that Sci-Hub provided access to 95% of all scholarly publications with issued DOI numbers, and on 15 July 2022 Sci-Hub reported that its collection comprises 88,343,822 files.

Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing launched in 2018 by "cOAlition S", a consortium of national research agencies and funders from twelve European countries. The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state-funded research organisations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2021. The "S" stands for "shock".

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Understanding Copyright and Related Rights" (PDF). 2016. p. 14, 20. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  2. ↑ "Copyright Basics" (PDF). p. 3. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  3. ↑ "Copyright Notice: Assignment of copyright" (PDF). p. 3. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  4. 1 2 3 Gadd, E.; Oppenheim, C.; Probets, S. (2003). "RoMEO studies 4: An analysis of journal publishers' copyright agreements". Learned Publishing. 16 (4): 293. doi:10.1087/095315103322422053. hdl: 10150/105141 . S2CID   40861778.
  5. 1 2 3 Friedman, B. A. (1982). "Copyright from a permissions person's point of view". Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 22 (2): 70–72. doi:10.1021/ci00034a001.
  6. 1 2 Lagowski, J. (1982). "Journal Copyright Problems: An Editor's View". Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 22 (2): 72–73. doi:10.1021/ci00034a600.
  7. 1 2 3 Bachrach, S.; Berry, R. S.; Blume, M.; Von Foerster, T.; Fowler, A.; Ginsparg, P.; Heller, S.; Kestner, N.; Odlyzko, A.; Okerson, A.; Wigington, R.; Moffat, A. (1998). "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:Who Should Own Scientific Papers?". Science. 281 (5382): 1459–1460. Bibcode:1998Sci...281.1459B. doi:10.1126/science.281.5382.1459. PMID   9750115. S2CID   36290551.
  8. ↑ Carroll, M. W. (2011). "Why Full Open Access Matters". PLOS Biology. 9 (11): e1001210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001210 . PMC   3226455 . PMID   22140361.
  9. ↑ "Transfer of Copyright". Journal of Applied Crystallography. 11: 63–64. 1978. doi: 10.1107/S0021889878012753 .
  10. ↑ "Chapter 2 - Circular 92 - U.S. Copyright Office". Copyright.gov. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  11. ↑ Gaeta, T. J. (1999). "Authorship: "Law" and Order". Academic Emergency Medicine. 6 (4): 297–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb00393.x . PMID   10230981.
  12. 1 2 Berquist, T. H. (2009). "The Copyright Transfer Agreement: We Sign It, but Do We Understand It?". American Journal of Roentgenology. 192 (4): 849–851. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2655. PMID   19320070.
  13. ↑ Lee, I. S.; Spector, M. (2012). "Coping with copying and conflicts (of interest)". Biomedical Materials. 7 (1): 010201. doi: 10.1088/1748-6041/7/1/010201 . PMID   22287538.
  14. ↑ Willinsky, John (4 November 2002). "Copyright Contradictions in Scholarly Publishing". First Monday . 7 (11). doi: 10.5210/fm.v7i11.1006 .
  15. ↑ Gadd, E.; Oppenheim, C.; Probets, S. (2003). "RoMEO studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving" (PDF). Journal of Documentation. 59 (3): 243. doi:10.1108/00220410310698239.
  16. ↑ Coleman, A. (2007). "Self-archiving and the Copyright Transfer Agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58 (2): 286–296. doi:10.1002/asi.20494. hdl: 10150/105292 .
  17. ↑ "Johnson v. STORIX, INC., Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2017 - Google Scholar". Scholar.google.com. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  18. ↑ Matushek, Kurt J. (2017). "Take Another Look at the Instructions for Authors". Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 250 (3): 258–259. doi: 10.2460/javma.250.3.258 . PMID   28117640.
  19. ↑ Bachrach, S.; Berry, R. S.; Blume, M.; von Foerster, T.; Fowler, A.; Ginsparg, P.; Heller, S.; Kestner, N.; Odlyzko, A.; Okerson, A.; Wigington, R.; Moffat, A. (1998). "Who Should Own Scientific Papers?". Science. 281 (5382): 1459–60. doi:10.1126/science.281.5382.1459. PMID   9750115. S2CID   36290551.
  20. ↑ Gadd, Elizabeth; Oppenheim, Charles; Probets, Steve (2003). "RoMEO Studies 4: An Analysis of Journal Publishers" Copyright Agreements" (PDF). Learned Publishing. 16 (4): 293–308. doi:10.1087/095315103322422053. hdl: 10150/105141 . S2CID   40861778.
  21. ↑ Willinsky, John (2002). "Copyright Contradictions in Scholarly Publishing". First Monday. 7 (11). doi: 10.5210/fm.v7i11.1006 . S2CID   39334346.
  22. ↑ Carroll, Michael W. (2011). "Why Full Open Access Matters". PLOS Biology. 9 (11): e1001210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001210 . PMC   3226455 . PMID   22140361.
  23. ↑ "Untangling Academic Publishing. A History of the Relationship between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research". 26.
  24. ↑ Fyfe, Aileen; McDougall-Waters, Julie; Moxham, Noah (2018). "Credit, Copyright, and the Circulation of Scientific Knowledge : The Royal Society in the Long Nineteenth Century". Victorian Periodicals Review. 51 (4): 597–615. doi:10.1353/vpr.2018.0045. hdl: 10023/16928 . S2CID   166171714.
  25. 1 2 Gadd, Elizabeth; Oppenheim, Charles; Probets, Steve (2003). "RoMEO Studies 1: The Impact of Copyright Ownership on Academic Author Self‐archiving" (PDF). Journal of Documentation. 59 (3): 243–277. doi:10.1108/00220410310698239.
  26. ↑ Davies, Mark (2015). "Academic Freedom: A Lawyer's Perspective" (PDF). Higher Education. 70 (6): 987–1002. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8. S2CID   144222460.
  27. ↑ Dodds, Francis (2018). "The Changing Copyright Landscape in Academic Publishing". Learned Publishing. 31 (3): 270–275. doi: 10.1002/leap.1157 .
  28. 1 2 Vanholsbeeck, Marc; Thacker, Paul; Sattler, Susanne; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Rivera-López, Bárbara S.; Rice, Curt; Nobes, Andy; Masuzzo, Paola; Martin, Ryan; Kramer, Bianca; Havemann, Johanna; Enkhbayar, Asura; Davila, Jacinto; Crick, Tom; Crane, Harry; Tennant, Jonathan P. (2019-03-11). "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing". Publications. 7 (2): 34. doi: 10.3390/publications7020034 .
  29. ↑ Morrison, Chris; Secker, Jane (2015). "Copyright Literacy in the UK: A Survey of Librarians and Other Cultural Heritage Sector Professionals". Library and Information Research. 39 (121): 75–97. doi: 10.29173/lirg675 .
  30. ↑ Dawson, Patricia H.; Yang, Sharon Q. (2016). "Institutional Repositories, Open Access and Copyright: What Are the Practices and Implications?" (PDF). Science & Technology Libraries. 35 (4): 279–294. doi:10.1080/0194262X.2016.1224994. S2CID   63819187.
  31. ↑ Peter Suber (2007-09-02). "Will open access undermine peer review?".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  32. ↑ Björk, Bo-Christer (2017). "Gold, Green, and Black Open Access". Learned Publishing. 30 (2): 173–175. doi: 10.1002/leap.1096 .
  33. ↑ Chawla, Dalmeet (2017). "Publishers Take ResearchGate to Court, Alleging Massive Copyright Infringement". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aaq1560.
  34. ↑ Jamali, Hamid R. (2017). "Copyright Compliance and Infringement in ResearchGate Full-Text Journal Articles". Scientometrics. 112: 241–254. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4. S2CID   27138477.
  35. ↑ "Access and Piracy". doi: 10.1629/uksg.333 . hdl: 10023/16938 .{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  36. ↑ Laakso, Mikael; Polonioli, Andrea (2018). "Open Access in Ethics Research: An Analysis of Open Access Availability and Author Self-Archiving Behaviour in Light of Journal Copyright Restrictions". Scientometrics. 116: 291–317. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2751-5 .
  37. ↑ Biasi, Barbara; Moser, Petra (2018). "Effects of Copyrights on Science - Evidence from the US Book Republication Program" (PDF). doi: 10.3386/w24255 .{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  38. ↑ Morrison, Heather (2017). "From the Field: Elsevier as an Open Access Publisher". The Charleston Advisor. 18 (3): 53–59. doi:10.5260/chara.18.3.53. hdl: 10393/35779 .
  39. ↑ W. Frass; J. Cross; V. Gardner (2013). Open Access Survey: Exploring the Views of Taylor & Francis and Routledge Authors (PDF). Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
  40. ↑ Wilbanks, J. (2006). "Another reason for opening access to research". BMJ. 333 (7582): 1306–1308. doi:10.1136/sbmj.39063.730660.F7. PMC   1761190 . PMID   17185718.
  41. ↑ Watt, F. M.; Sever, R. (2004). "Non-profit publishing: Open access and the end of copyright transfer". Journal of Cell Science. 117 (Pt 1): 1. doi: 10.1242/jcs.00873 . PMID   14657267.
  42. ↑ Burk, Dan L. (2007). "Intellectual Property in the Context of e-Science". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 12 (2): 600–617. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00340.x .
  43. ↑ Molloy, J. C. (2011). "The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science". PLOS Biology. 9 (12): e1001195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195 . PMC   3232214 . PMID   22162946.
  44. ↑ Mintable (2021-08-09). "NFT Metadata - What's All This?". Mintable Editorial. Retrieved 2022-08-10.
  45. ↑ "Forthcoming papers". Applied Physics A: Solids and Surfaces. 59: A5. 1994. doi:10.1007/BF00348410. S2CID   198207309.
  46. ↑ "Author rights: using the SPARC Author Addendum to secure your rights as the author of a journal article". SPARC. Archived from the original on 30 October 2013. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
  47. ↑ "Amend a Publishing Agreement". Harvard University Library. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.